[Bug debug/58315] [4.8/4.9/5/6 Regression] Excessive memory use with -g

[redflames1003 at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315

Christopher Torres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||redflames1003 at gmail dot com

--- Comment #29 from Christopher Torres  ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #28)
> Author: jason
> Date: Wed Feb 25 15:49:34 2015
> New Revision: 220974
> 
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220974&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
>   PR debug/58315
>   * decl.c (start_preparsed_function): Use create_artificial_label
>   for cdtor_label.
> 
> Added:
> trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/deleted-label1.C
> Modified:
> trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
> trunk/gcc/cp/decl.c


I also am looking for a fix for this issue. Compile times are at least x2
longer then before when I updated from an older version (from 30-40 minutes to
over 1 1/2 hours).

Is there any status updates on this issue? Does this effectively do what
Alexandre Oliva's patch does?

[Bug debug/58315] [4.9/5 Regression] Excessive memory use with -g

[redflames1003 at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315

--- Comment #35 from Christopher Torres  ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #33)
> Err, this is only fixed in the trunk so far.  It's approved for 5.2 too,
> after some time, if no issues pop up.  So, reopening.

Hey Alexandre,

I was wondering if it would be possible to get a patch for the 4.9 branch,
specifically 4.9.2. I tried applying the patch you posed here but I was unable
to cleanly compile due to errors. id->call_stmt and id->retbnd are not defined
in the struct.

We want to have this fix but are unable to upgrade to the latest due to the
size of our project.

Thanks,

Chris

[Bug debug/58315] [4.9/5 Regression] Excessive memory use with -g

[redflames1003 at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315

--- Comment #39 from Christopher Torres  ---
(In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #36)
> Created attachment 36472 [details]
> backported patch for the 4.9 branch
> 
> Chris,
> 
> retbnd is of no concern, nothing equivalent existed back then.
> 
> call_stmt was called gimple_call.
> 
> Here's a backported patch, barely tested.  Please let me know how it goes
> for you.

Thank you. Looking at the diff it doesn't look like this will actually compile
since redbnd and call_stmt is still in there. Did you maybe upload the wrong
patch file? 

Thanks